On Thu 06 Nov 2008 at 03:06PM, Brad Hall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Link to webrev: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~bhall/figleaf/
>
> More information on figleaf:
> http://darcs.idyll.org/~t/projects/figleaf/doc/
>
> Figleaf is a tool for python code coverage analysis.
>
> This adds a new makefile target "coverage" which will run the test suite
> under figleaf. If figleaf isn't installed, it will install it. When it
> is done running it generates a coverage report in html format.
>
> Unfortunately it's not really easy to get the output into a reasonable
> text format at this point. Doing that will require some modifications
> to figleaf. (It can output to coverage.py format, but it doesn't give
> any control over where the files go, names, etc., currently.)
Can you show us a sample report for our codebase? Should people post
these coverage reports with their code reviews? I'm trying to get a
feel for how we'll use this.
I would probably rename COVERAGE to PKG_COVERAGE since I think other
test environment variable controls are prefixed with PKG_.
Will this wind up polluting my workspace (or other random dirs) with the
'html' directory? If yes, maybe we should call it something more
easily identifiable (cov_report/ or something).
I think the 'rename' you do from html --> html.bak will fail following
the first rename, won't it? i.e. once I have html/ and html.bak/,
what will happen?
-dp
--
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - blogs.sun.com/dp
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
